Is it worth having const/immutable functions on ranges? [was: Re: std.path review: second update]

[Jonathan M Davis]

On Friday 29 July 2011 15:58:14 Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 15:47:55 -0400, KennyTM~ <kennytm at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Comments:
> > 
> > - pathSplitter: empty, front, back could be const.
> 
> I know it seems like "if it could be const, we should mark it const", but
> does it always make sense?  I mean, consider this example.  Should
> front/back/empty be const?  What are ever the chance that someone has a
> const range?  Consider that a const range is near useless (it can't do
> it's primary function -- iterate).
> 
> Just wondering...

I'd generally argue that if it can be const, it should be const. So, it's 
probably better to make empty, front, and back const. However, const functions 
_range_ rather pointless for ranges. So, I'm not really sure that it matters. 
It could go either way.

- Jonathan M Davis